The official blog of the Libertarian Party
November 01, 2005
Freeing the Blogosphere from FEC regulations
The Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606) is scheduled for a vote in the House on Wednesday, November 2nd. If passed, this bill will amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exempt communications over the Internet from being included under "public communication" that is subject to the Federal Campaign Act.
Additionally, this bill will exempt blogs, emails, and other forms of online speech from being regulated by the Federal Elections Commission. The bill is sponsored by Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R - Texas). Congressman Ron Paul (R - Texas) is one of the nine co-sponsors.
The pending legislation is necessary to prevent the FEC from issuing new regulations regarding online communications. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act only applies to television and radio and does not mention the Internet. As a result of a court ruling, the FEC plans to issue a new set of regulations that would cover online communications.
The proposed regulations would turn group blogs into regulated "political committees," thereby imposing a "code of ethics" regulating bloggers than of talk radio hosts or newspaper columnists. It will decree the amount of time we can spend at work participating in politics online, and label links to candidate Web sites as "in-kind" contributions subject to reporting requirements according to the National Law Journal.
The FEC is trying to fix a non-existent problem. The bureaucratic rationale behind extending its regulations to online communications is to prevent abuse. A blanket exemption would allow the unregulated coordination among state or local committees of political parties; political action committees or 527 organizations; and candidates, according to the Federal Elections Commission.
The Internet empowers the average citizen to make their voice heard in the political process. Any individual can set up their own website relatively quickly, and instantaneously reaching millions of potential readers. The Internet also gives power to small-dollar donors and magnifies their impact, as Howard Dean's presidential bid demonstrated according to the National Law Journal.
Posted by at November 1, 2005 10:22 AM
Reader Comments:
This is much needed legislation, in my opinion. Unfortunately, this probably means it'll be voted down by Congress. Or more likely, it'll never reach a vote and get stalled in committee.
Of course, it would be even better if they would simply scrap the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act entirely, immediately following the announcement that hell has frozen over.
The bureaucratic rationale for the FEC to regulate political speech on the Internet is not to prevent abuse, it's to prevent anti-establishment candidates from bypassing the establishment-controlled TV, radio, and newspapers and actually having a chance to be heard fairly in the political arena.
They want to make sure parties like us dont use the net to gain a toehold on the electorate. We could simulcast our Presidential candidate giving answers live over the net in real time, making debate shut outs a thing of the past. We could buy time during the actual debate driving people to lp.org to watch.
....If we can raise the money required. We raised 1 million in 2004. That's not even enough for a house seat right now.
Who is running for Libertarian President? How many more men is running for Congress that are Libertarians?
Tim, 1 million isn't even enough to run many local non-profits, let alone a state or national organization. The LP should feel embarassed that so few people actually support its efforts and make the reforms necessary toward getting more libertarian minded people involved.
It truely is a shame how much money it costs to run for any federal office in this country. Do Libertarians have any solutions to fix this, in my opinion, damaging situation to US democracy? Have Libertarians thought about pushing for proportional representation like they do in many European countries?
Another Matt: How does one get the two big party pols to agree to proportional representation?
If the voters demand it? Do you know how much it would cost to even explain prop. voting to them?
Those who do understand generally oppose it, like my boss who says he would never want to see the kind of coalition government chaos he sees in Germany or Italy. And the reason it costs so much to run a campaign (and it really doesn't, compared with, say, launching a new four blade razor) is because party loyalty is so weak these days. Hundred years ago, you knew your party had 60% registration and you could sit on your front porch and win. Now, so many are "independent"
(and party discipline is so weak) that large sums of money needs to be expended in order to convince these people that Jesus II is running against the Devil Incarnate.
Well, Hensarling is committing to his own destruction. We're gaining position down here.
Wow, this just makes us look bad. How could the Californian LP allow this site to go up. Its embarassing, especially when we are trying to establish a bigger presence in the US. www.friesian.com/ross/ca40/
"Wow, this just makes us look bad. How could the Californian LP allow this site to go up. Its embarassing, especially when we are trying to establish a bigger presence in the US. www.friesian.com/ross/ca40/
Posted by: Michael at November 1, 2005 07:24 PM"
You're right, his foreign policy views are embarassing. Of course, it's his private website, and the California LP can't tell him what to put on it or not.
"http://villagevoice.com/news/0544,lombardi,69553,6.html
funny, this woman gets more media then the Libertarian and now their is talk of her running for President. what a laugh
Posted by: at November 1, 2005 05:32 PM"
WHY is it a laugh?
She's at least open to libertarian views, writes for LewRockwell.com and LRC blog.
Maybe she would run as an LP candidate; Karen Kwiatkowski certainly could.
And why shouldn't Cindy get more press than the Libertarian (any one in particular, or all put together?) She certainly gets a lot more done...
Are you kidding? Sheehan doesn't get a beaver-stopped thing done. She just looks like a fool, which is what she is. She's advocating only one thing, and not a very logical thing at that.
Well, according to the Village Voice article, Sheehan is interested in running against Hillary Clinton. I'd have to say that Sheehan would be the lesser of two evils in that case. I wouldn't vote for her, but if she succeeded in keeping Clinton out of the Senate, it wouldn't be terrible.
RE: Proportional Representation, how do we convince the duopoly?
Libs are already doing it by cy coalition work. in Florida, Local Democrats have agreed to work to that end in a coalition with libertarians: see http://www.ERCPinellas.org Also, there is opportunity to work with groups interested in PR, and in some states such as Colorado, it has almost passed in PRESIDENTIAL elections.
"Are you kidding? Sheehan doesn't get a beaver-stopped thing done."
I diagree. She's helped shift public opinion against the insane war in Iraq, and embarassed the Bush Crime Family. Too bad the LP hasn't done nearly as much.
"he just looks like a fool, which is what she is."
Disagree strongly on both counts.
"he's advocating only one thing, and not a very logical thing at that."
Of course it's logical. The war was based on lies and has made things worse both for America and Iraq. The only logical answer is to pull out immediately (and not gradually as the faulty and cowardly LP exit strategy advocates).
Or, let the troops stay, but stop paying them immediately. If they want to stay and fight, they can do so at their own expense, or those of you who support this deranged war can fundraise to pay for them rather than stealing the money from those of us who don't.
And if they want to get back to the US they can pay for their own plane ticket.
"Well, according to the Village Voice article, Sheehan is interested in running against Hillary Clinton. I'd have to say that Sheehan would be the lesser of two evils in that case. I wouldn't vote for her, but if she succeeded in keeping Clinton out of the Senate, it wouldn't be terrible."
What's evil about her? And I thought the article said she either is not running or hasn't decided.
"I diagree. She's helped shift public opinion against the insane war in Iraq, and embarassed the Bush Crime Family. Too bad the LP hasn't done nearly as much."
Has she though? Nobody pays attention to her anymore. The war was already decreasing in popularity when she decided to make a scene.
"Disagree strongly on both counts."
OK.
"Of course it's logical. The war was based on lies and has made things worse both for America and Iraq. The only logical answer is to pull out immediately (and not gradually as the faulty and cowardly LP exit strategy advocates)."
That'll only piss off people more. We can't just leave. The rest of the world doesn't care about party-era changes inside America; we'll be screwing over the Iraqis if we leave and that's morally depraved.
Hi All! Just had to drop by and see if everyone has donated to Michael Badnarik's Campaign yet?(www.badnarik.org)
Also, Mary Ruwart's "SHORT ANSWERS TO THE TOUGH QUESTIONS" and "HEALING OUR WORLD IN AN AGE OF AGGRESSION" are both "must read, must have, and must shares"!
Of course, everyone here knows her since her work is at The Advocates(www.theadvocates.org) who also, by the way, have the "WORLD'S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ"(ps-for those who love gadgets and PDAs...they have a download version for your PDA).
Mary's website is www.ruwart.com for those interested.
www.badnarik.org
www.constitutionpreservation.org
www.theadvocates.org
www.ruwart.com
www.libertydollar.org
www.freestateproject.org
First, Paul, Cindy Sheehan is obviously antiwar, but don't kid yourself by thinking she's a libertarian. LRC publishes her articles for her strong antiwar stand (and her semi-celebrity). If she ever seeks office, it will be as a Democrat.
Second, when would be a good time for US troops to withdraw from Iraq, Nigel? If you say "when the country is more stable," you're actually saying "never." All the evidence shows that this is as good as things are going to get there. We have to come to terms with that, and not allow more Americans to be killed for past mistakes.
Third, I thought there was an official policy against advertising particular campaigns or materials on this blog. Rob's post certainly qualifies as that. Is there any moderation here at all?
"Second, when would be a good time for US troops to withdraw from Iraq, Nigel? If you say "when the country is more stable," you're actually saying "never." All the evidence shows that this is as good as things are going to get there. We have to come to terms with that, and not allow more Americans to be killed for past mistakes."
We should split it into a Kurd state, a sunni state, and a Shiite state, and get out.
"Has she though? Nobody pays attention to her anymore. The war was already decreasing in popularity when she decided to make a scene."
You're paying attention to her now. So do a lot of people.
"That'll only piss off people more [getting out of Iraq now]."
Which people? Not the people of Iraq, not the majority of Americans, nor any other country except MAYBE Israel - and probably not even most of them, just their politicians.
Well, it will piss of Halliburton, military-industrial-corporate cronies, faux news blabbermouths, chickenhawk warbloggers and a few Iraqi collaborator/traitors. But for the most part everyone would be happy to downright joyous except for those who have tuned out all together, who will go on watching some stupid reality show (if living in a rich country) or picking through garbage for scraps of food (if living in a poor one) regardless of what the USSA regime does or does not.
"We can't just leave."
What do you mean we? Are you in Iraq? See
http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=7889
"we'll be screwing over the Iraqis if we leave and that's morally depraved."
No, the regime will continue to screw over Iraqis and Americans if it stays. I am assuming you are not part of the regime and are not currently in Iraq; my apologies if I am wrong on this point.
How about those who want a war with Iraq or any other country just pay for it themselves, and quit using stolen tax money. They can then go fight themselves or hire mercenaries. Leave the US regime and tax extortion out of it.
Then you can legitimately call it we, unless of course you are already there or are actually paid to spread the propaganda of the fascist regime rather than just being an unpaid dupe like most warmongers.
And I mean that without any rancor. I think lots of otherwise fundamentally good people have been duped by the persistent regime propaganda. I have no reason to assume you are not among them.
"First, Paul, Cindy Sheehan is obviously antiwar, but don't kid yourself by thinking she's a libertarian. LRC publishes her articles for her strong antiwar stand (and her semi-celebrity). If she ever seeks office, it will be as a Democrat."
I don't know what her politics are, other than the war issue. I don't know that she is or is not libertarian; she may well not know a lot about it yet. I do know she actually personally posts at LRC blog and is not just re-published by Lew. How do you know she's a Democrat? Maybe she is, maybe not, or perhaps you are better acquainted with her other views than I am.
Paul, you're mistakenly assuming that I like the war in Iraq. Let me set this straight. I think the war in Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision since the War of 1812.
"Paul, you're mistakenly assuming that I like the war in Iraq. Let me set this straight. I think the war in Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision since the War of 1812."
Sorry. I thought you said "we" should stay there?
Some people fall for this diversion: "we" were wrong to go in there in the first place, but now must stay to finish the job.
This is one way in which warmongers trap otherwise sensible people into supporting the continuation of their war.
Since it's now become apparent to most people that the war was based on lies, you'll be hearing more of this all the time.
Look at it this way: you've made a wrong turn and wound up in a quagmire. The further you go in the deeper in the mud you sink. Keep going or turn back immediately?
Or, suppose you have gotten on the southbound expressway when you meant to go north. Keep going because you are already headed in that direction? Equally silly.
Yet some people think the answer to having made a giant policy error is...to continue it.
All I'm saying is that from a foreign perspective it's depraved for America to destablize Iraq and then leave it to go to hell. And maybe that's still the best solution, but I think it'll hurt the US's image.
No, most foreigners (and now most Americans) would prefer the US just get out.
That's what they say now, but they'll be the first ones yelling at the US for leaving it in shambles.
From the statements from Mrs Sheehan were she to answer the questions on the Libraterian Web Site "Worlds Smallest Political Quiz", I am quite confident she would score to in the Liberal sector and to the far left of that.
"That's what they say now, but they'll be the first ones yelling at the US for leaving it in shambles.
Posted by: Nigel Watt at November 3, 2005 07:35 PM"
Paul) They've already made it a shambles, and only make it more so the longer they stay.
"From the statements from Mrs Sheehan were she to answer the questions on the Libraterian Web Site "Worlds Smallest Political Quiz", I am quite confident she would score to in the Liberal sector and to the far left of that.
Posted by: Stockman at November 4, 2005 06:39 PM"
Paul) Which statements are those? Can you provide a link?
Paul,
Reasonable question, just not in my data base. I did not keep the links of her interviews but remembered her ideology positions which are both patriotic and honorable.
If Congressman Ron Paul co-sponsered this bill I support it with out reading it. The congressman enjoys an unblimished voteing record in support of libeterian principles. He is the only politician whoes judgement I can trust.
No he doesn't. He sponsored a bill saying that "life begins at conception," something which is clearly a moral gray area and which on libertarian principles should not be legislated about.
Nigel Watt
Those with extream positions can't agree on anything between the beginning of human development and actual birth.
Surely there some reasonable middle ground that protects the rights of the most involved parties.
Those with extream positons are likely to remain unhappy with any compromise but if peace is to be found that is where it lies.
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Freeing the Blogosphere from FEC regulations:
» Online Freedom of Speech Act from IO ERROR
H.R. 1606, known as the Online Freedom of Speech Act, comes up for a vote Wednesday in the House of Representatives. The act would protect people such as myself from the evil Federal Election Commission, which has proposed regulations which would stif... [Read More]
Tracked on November 1, 2005 02:26 PM
| 
This is much needed legislation, in my opinion. Unfortunately, this probably means it'll be voted down by Congress. Or more likely, it'll never reach a vote and get stalled in committee.
Of course, it would be even better if they would simply scrap the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act entirely, immediately following the announcement that hell has frozen over.
Posted by: Libertarian TV at November 1, 2005 10:54 AM